Figures show a general decline in lawlessness, but the statistics are still as
hard to decipher as under Labour.

Crime statistics for the 12 months to last September, published yesterday, showed that overall offences recorded by the police fell by four per cent. While there was an increase in crimes against the person, such as muggings, the data appear to suggest there has been a modest decline in the levels of general lawlessness. Yet the period covered by these figures includes the most widespread outbreak of mass looting, arson and rioting seen for 30 years.

The researchers who compiled the statistics said the impact of the August disturbances was “small”. But while the worst effects of the riots were indeed localised, the reason that they make only a modest contribution to the crime figures has more to do with methodology than common sense. The statistics are compiled based on the number of victims rather than the number of offenders. So, for example, hundreds of looters may ransack a clothes shop, but the offence is still recorded as a single case of burglary.

This is typical of the way crime statistics have operated for many years. Under Labour, they became impossible to decipher, because different data sets were cherry-picked by ministers to reflect favourably on the government. Unfortunately, this confusion has continued with the latest figures: while crimes recorded by police fell, the British Crime Survey showed an increase. Moreover, the number of incidents of violence against the person logged by the police fell by eight per cent, while the number of thefts from the person rose by eight per cent. How can both be true? People are not stupid. They know that it stretches credulity for official figures to suggest that 2011 was a good year for crime-fighting. At a time when public faith in the criminal justice system is distinctly shaky, honesty and transparency with the statistics is the least we can expect.